Requested from CDOT’s Carolyn Motzkus in a Colorado Open Records Act request made Dec. 2, 2011, the documents arrived at this blogger’s home Friday(1/13/12) despite Colorado Law stipulating a 3-day maximum waiting period for providing requested documents to the requester.

Farmington Hill would be modified to be wider, have greater solar exposure and fewer turns in it under the proposed alternatives offered by Russell Engineering, who drafted designs for Chris Webb.

Motzkus said in an email that due to a personal illness she had been out of the office and only working intermittently.

Under Colorado law, Motkus´s abscence does not justify or equate to an extenuating circumstance for two specifically requested PDF documents that could have been provided by email after being scanned with the click of a button.

More importantly, one of the documents I received was a Webb Ranch report drafted by Russell Engineering  that lays out with technical detail how they recommend that CDOT should use the existing Farminton Hill alignment. It would be modified to make for a safer approach with broader turning angles and greater solar exposure.

In addition to the recommendations from Russell Engineering was a second file of comments by Traffic Engineer Kathleen Krager where she confronts in detail how CDOT’s 2030 Trip Report provided over-inflated traffic projections for the Grandview area. Krager works for Chris Webb. She outlines how errors were made in the Draft SEIS due to CDOT’s use of those over-inflated traffic projections.

Also, her letter describes how CDOT’s safety analysis conducted for the Draft SEIS was invalid for overstating the current dangers of the Farmington Hill grade because of a lack of reported fatalities, and an accident rate that’s less than average, according to the Safety Analysis Section for the Colorado Department of Highways.

Webb engineer’s statement on CDOT’s Draft SEIS–PDF

Webb engineer’s proposal for Farmington Hill–PDF

This blogger requested these documents from Webb and Krager, but they denied my request for arbitrary and capricious reasons. 

“At this time, these documents are under review by CDOT, and we believe that it would be unethical to share them with anyone else,” Krager said in an email. “In addition, these documents are the property of Mr. Webb.”

Actually, the copies this blogger obtained are now property of the general public since they were submitted as part of a public review process, despite Krager’s reasoning for denial.

It’s just a shame that this blogger had to pay $40 dollars for something that Mr. Webb could have provided me with for free in the first place. Such is life.

Below is a dissection of wording taken from the Colorado Open Records Act where the law specifically stipulates what constitutes a reasonable time period for agencies to respond to said request(s).

24-72-203. Public records open to inspection.

(b) The date and hour set for the inspection of records not readily available at the time of the request shall be within a reasonable time after the request. As used in this subsection (3), a “reasonable time” shall be presumed to be three working days or less. Such period may be extended if extenuating circumstances exist. However, such period of extension shall not exceed seven working days. A finding that extenuating circumstances exist shall be made in writing by the custodian and shall be provided to the person making the request within the three-day period. Extenuating circumstances shall apply only when:
(I) A broadly stated request is made that encompasses all or substantially all of a large category of records and the request is without sufficient specificity to allow the custodian reasonably to prepare or gather the records within the three-day period; or
(II) A broadly stated request is made that encompasses all or substantially all of a large category of records and the agency is unable to prepare or gather the records within the three-day period because:
(A) The agency needs to devote all or substantially all of its resources to meeting an impending deadline or period of peak demand that is either unique or not predicted to recur more frequently than once a month; or
(B) In the case of the general assembly or its staff or service agencies, the general assembly is in session; or
(III) A request involves such a large volume of records that the custodian cannot reasonably prepare or gather the records within the three-day period without substantially interfering with the custodian’s obligation to perform his or her other public service responsibilities.
(c) In no event can extenuating circumstances apply to a request that relates to a single, specifically identified document.

“There’s ridges with no names, there’s creeks with no names, there’s cliffs,  there’s trails with no names,” said Chairman Paul Wilbert. “It seems like that’s something that maybe we could help with.”

In the foreground sits a coal mine in Horse Gulch--it's name, I do not know. In the background lays a ridgeline. It has no name, although it is a part of the Fruitland Outcrop.

“Then set up a process and ideally there’d be a list. If it’s benches, where are the places that they would go,” Wilbert said.

Board member Mark Smith asked Wilbert what the goal was, or what isn’t being done that needs to get done.

“Do you feel like we don’t have enough names, or are you trying to create a system that raises money, or is it something else,” Smith asked.

Wilbert replied saying that it’s not that we don’t have enough names.

“What’s missing,” Smith then asked.

Wilbert wavered, having earlier said that the naming could obviously go too far.

“There are places that don’t have names, so that’s one,” Wilbert replied. “Places where there’s some existing trails,  some new trails that are going to go in, but don’t have names yet–it seems like it ought to be the city doing that. There’s the opportunity for major donations.”

“Naming is part of this, but, another part of it is providing amenities that go with open space and trails, and how we might go about developing and identifying the  places where those kind of things can happen,” said Wilbert.

Wilbert thinks that the city should take initiative in the process of choosing places where people should be allowed to put up benches or plant trees in memory or celebration of the lives of people who’ve died.

“Things like shade, benches, overlooks and things like that that you see that really make a lot of trail use and open-space use delightful, and provide destinations,” said Wilbert. “Rather than reacting to individuals that are constantly coming to the city saying we want to do this, we want to do this, here’s the place we want to do it. Taking the initiative on part of the staff and board to say here’s what we think could be done, and here’s where and here’s the process. So that when someone comes to the city and says I want to do a memorial, or I want to do a bench or I want to plant a tree, we can say well you can choose among these places and these things and here’s how much it costs.”

This bench at the Durango Dog Park was purchased by one Durango resident. She also had a plaque installed on the top rail of the bench with a quote and a memorial to her mother.

The City currently has a policy in place for people who want to buy a bench or tree for the City to install in a park in memory or celebration of someone, said Durango Parks and Recreation Director Cathy Metz. Many of these were off of the river trail, but the policy allows for them in city parks as well.

As for corporate or non-profit entities buying the trees or benches, they would be allowed to as well on city park lands, although currently there aren’t many requests, Metz said.

One example of the City allowing residents to name a whole park was the renaming of Durango Mountain Park to Overrend Mountain Park, Metz said.

Board member Dick White brought up the inevitable slippery slope of corporate entities asking if they could name a piece of open space. He also confronted Wilbert’s request that the entire board work together to name geographical features.

“I can confess right now, I’d be really uncomfortable with that,” White said.

Skepticism over naming geographical features was obvious in the words of Smith, as well.

“You don’t want to see the Little Fishes lookout rock show up, and that’s what you’re flirting with, I think. If you’re not careful, you’re going to have a backlash from some folks in the community who don’t want to see the commercialization of our open spaces. That’s why I’m sitting here quietly just kind of taking this in. I’m kind of wondering how you keep that from happening. If somebody’s going to buy a trail or a bench, where do you draw the line? If some widow wants to put the money she saved in her mattress to name something after her husband that died, is that one thing, and Mercury Payment Systems’ memorial to somebody something else. It’s kind of a thin line you walk.”

“It’s a great thing for the community, it’ll just stir up a lot of unnecessary drama,” Smith said.

This corner in the lower part of Horse Gulch has a little bit of ice if you look carefully to the right side of the trail. If you hit this ice on your bike you could really jack yourself up. Be careful..

Today was the first time that I've ever seen horses in Horse Gulch--after 11 years of riding, hiking and running up there.This blogger didn't check out Telegraph, so go see what it's like for yourself.

Here’s some trash that my buddy and I picked up in Horse Gulch on our hike today.

The Gulch and the south side of it on Oakridge Energy's property has plenty of this trash that homeless alcoholics leave behind. My buddy and I picked some of this up near the trail head as a gesture of caring for Horse Gulch..

An assemblage of the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Region 5 employees was greeted this month by a contingent of dissidents voicing their opposition to the agency’s proposal of connecting US 550 to US 160 at the Bridge to Nowhere.

Most of the dissidents were a group of engineers organized by landowner Chris Webb, whose property would be condemned, and a canyon then bulldozed and excavated into it in order to align US 550 with the Bridge to Nowhere.

A ponderosa pine stand on the Webb Ranch that would likely be taken out if CDOT implemented their preferred future alignment of US 550 at the Bridge to Nowhere.

But the transportation director for CDOT and a small group of people living on Farmington Hill or south of there gave support for the engineering and safety appeal of using the Bridge to Nowhere as the connecting point. Others were irked at the idea of their property values diminishing, increased traffic pollution or being relocated all together with proposed alignments to the east that would run near or across their property in the process of connecting with Three Springs Boulevard.

Grandview Interchange justification based on loaded numbers?

One of the engineers that Webb brought in for CDOT’s meeting was Kathleen Krager, of Denver, who said she has over thirty-five years of experience as a road engineer.

Krager gave comments about traffic projections for 2030 that were used in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) by CDOT to justify the extra cost of connecting US 550 at the Bridge to Nowhere.

“The 86,000 vehicles a day that are expected on 160 would be the same volume of traffic that I-25 currently has on it in sections of Colorado Springs,” said Krager. “Considering that Colorado Springs has a population of 400 thousand people, I do not expect to see that level of traffic volumes on the road for a community of 51,000 people.”

A more affordable and less damaging alternative that’s already been thrown out should be reconsidered instead, Krager said.

Webb engineer’s statement on CDOT’s Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement–PDF

Five more bridges in Grandview?

At CDOT’s meeting, attorney Chris Webb—whose property CDOT wants to put the highway through—spoke in favor of building consensus around a solution for where to align US 550. He also warned of CDOT’s plans to put up more bridges in Grandview if they decide to connect US 550 at the Bridge to Nowhere.

Two bridges would exist at the site of the current Bridge to Nowhere if CDOT chooses to implement their preferred alternative, according to CDOT's Public Relations Manager, Nancy Shanks.

“I’ve been told by our people that there may be five more bridges if they do Modified G. That means there will be a second Bridge to Nowhere that’s parallel to the one that’s there,” said Webb. “This is a scary thing for me. It changes our community. We have to think about that. Also there may be additional clover leaf construction.”

Webb brought reality to some people’s request to see the project come to completion immediately.

“Funding what we’ve heard today may be 10 years out for actual construction,” said Webb. “So we are living with some realities here, CDOT’s realities, that it doesn’t necessarily control, so I’m not throwing a stone at them at all.”

Nancy Shanks, CDOT’s Regional Public Relations Manager, confirmed the planning of up to four additional bridges that would be concurrent with the selection of US 550 Revised Modified G Alternative, which would connect at the Bridge to Nowhere.

Bridges one and two would be twin bridges over a draw on the mesa when a four-lane highway from Durango to the New Mexico state line is constructed to meet the objectives called for in the US 550 Environmental Assessment.

Bridge number three would parallel the current Bridge to Nowhere if US 550 were to connect there to accommodate the four lanes of traffic.

Bridge number four, Shanks said, would be possible on Ramp C, as an on- ramp for westbound traffic on the north side of US 160 to meet the needs of future traffic capacity.

It is not clear whether a clover leaf construction is also part of the plans for CDOT’s preferred, Revised Modified G Alternative alignment.

Safety concerns with current alignment of US 550

In CDOT’s Environmental Impact Statement, the construction of a Grandview Interchange is justified to address both the safety and capacity requirements for the Grandview area.

Among safety concerns are two important data points in the SDEIS that stick out as indicators that recent accidents in the US160/US550 corridor could be a result of impatient drivers there as much as a faulty road design.

Chris Webb's attorney, Thom McNeill, is rallying CDOT to consider modifying the existing alignment of US 550 on Farmington Hill as a solution to current safety and traffic capacity concerns on the curving, north-facing stretch.

More specifically, the northern part of Farmington Hill from MP 15.78 heading down to the intersection with US 160 had the highest concentration of crashes, according to CDOT. Many of those were rear-end accidents related to the intersection with County Road 220. Most of the others were collisions with animals, but overturning accidents were next in frequency at 17 percent.

Of 19 accidents on Farmington Hill that involved overturning, sideswiping oncoming traffic or collisions with fences, trees, signs, large rocks/boulders, embankments or a light/utility pole during adverse road conditions, 7 of those took place on curved sections of road.

Of six overturning accidents there, three were during icy road conditions, and three were during dry conditions.

Steve Winters, an engineer with Russell Engineering, spoke for Webb at CDOT’s meeting about the importance of reducing the design speed on US 550 further south of the intersection with County Road 220 in order to allow drivers time to slow down before approaching the intersection. Currently the speed limit on US 550 changes from 45 mph to 35 mph less than 100 feet before the second turnoff from County Road 220, giving drivers little time to slow before vehicles pull out in front of them onto US 550.

The current reduction of speed to 35 mph on US 550 occurs about 100 ft. from the current accident-prone intersection with County Road 220.

“If you have to slow down to 35 (mph) to go down the hill, you would probably do that south of (County Road) 220, I think this would make that intersection much safer, because you could reduce the design speed there.”

To address the problem of collisions with animals, as a requirement of the US 160 FEIS, CDOT recently installed a wildlife fence on the south side of US 160 above a retaining wall. While the retaining wall is too high for animals to jump up and over to the top, it serves the function of saving animals from killing themselves by falling off of it, said CDOT’s Public Relations Manager Nancy Shanks.

“An interesting note was that we did have several deer killed during construction due to them attempting to go off the wall sections,” Shanks said in and email. “The fence does help to protect them from this vertical drop.”

A push against the ‘grand dig’; towards modifying the existing alignment

Thomas McNeill, the attorney for Webb, gave voice to an alternative that CDOT dismissed in its Supplemental Draft EIS that would modify the existing Farmington Hill approach.

Webb engineer’s proposal for Farmington Hill–PDF

Known for its tight turns, steep grade and north-facing aspect, the existing Farmington Hill alignment can be widened and modified as needed to correct some of these safety concerns, McNeill said.

“The construction that’s proposed in Alternative G Modified is going to have a tremendous impact. Not just on the Webb Ranch, but on this entire community,” said McNeill. “CDOT calls that construction in their interim documents the ‘grand dig’.”

“What they’re talking about when you drive past that Bridge to Nowhere, and you look at where it abuts to that hillside, is an 880 ft. width cut that’s 120ft. deep and extends about 1400 linear feet,” he said.

“There is still an existing alignment alternative that does make sense. It does not require huge retaining walls. It can come in right where Farmington Hill is, and squeeze just a little bit in the Webb Ranch way,” McNeill said. “It doesn’t impact anybody else. And we can accomplish the objectives that we’re all looking to accomplish so that we all have safe travels in this community.”

Steve Winters, an engineer with Russell Engineering who spoke at the request of Webb, also championed modifying the existing alignment.

“If you look at the existing alignment, and what one of the proposals is, it’s to shave back the slope, which would greatly increase the amount of solar exposure that you guys would get,” he said.

“In revised modified G, you’re going to build in this 120 ft. deep canyon that has 31 (degree) slopes,” said Winters. “But I think if you look at the solar exposure, it might be similar to what you have out there now.”

A call for officials at CDOT to resign

“How is it that we’ve gotten to this point, had a bridge built, and we haven’t even gotten out of the planning stages? How did we get to this point?

Those were the words of Ignacio resident Dana Abendroth at CDOT’s SDEIS meeting, shortly before calling on those CDOT officials responsible for the recently constructed, yet disconnected Grandview Interchange, to resign.

“At this point, I feel that some of the planning people on this have failed to do their jobs. I don’t think that we should have them at CDOT. I think that many of the people at CDOT in this region have to be ousted. I think they’ve wasted a lot of our money. I think we have to get a petition going and have this corrected.”

As for a future connecting point for US 550, Abendroth said that it would not happen at the Bridge to Nowhere because Webb is trying to hold up the process by getting his land qualified for the Historical Registry, which is a legal means of protecting a land or property from destruction.

“Everybody likes their place, everybody wants to keep it. Everybody has a price though, as well. I’m sure that if Mr. Webb was offered the right price, he’d be willing to sell it.”

A ponderosa pine waits in limbo on the Webb Ranch as CDOT takes some time to decide if it wants to put a road there in connecting with the Bridge to Nowhere.

Chris Webb responded in a conversation to this prediction of him selling out by saying that he would not accept bags of money for his property as a means of resolution.

“I’ve seen people who were well off when they died, and they were not happy,” he said.

To submit comments on the US 160 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, visit: http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/us550-at-160/supplementaldeis/submit-your-comment, or write to Sandra Taylor, CDOT, 3803 North Main Ave., Suite 300, Durango, CO 81301.

This proposed bike park at Chapman Hill could get funded by the City of Durango in the next few years.

It speaks against the ideas of putting in a paved wheelchair path or a bathroom at any of the trail heads, among other things.

Horse Gulch from Stacy's Loop

Click the link below to read or to sign the petition.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-primitive-horse-gulch/

Nick Collins, an avid Horse Gulch mountain biker, rode the new Stacy’s loop right after they made the new route.

The excavator used on the project was seen Sunday at the bottom of the big meadow in Horse Gulch. It was used to pull mounds of dirt onto the old Stacy's Loop in order to obstruct it as a usable trail.

“Me and my girlfriend rode it, and it ended up being complete crap. They took down all the berms. They made it all super sandy and loose. It’s pretty much the worst trail in the Gulch now, when it was one of the more fun downhills. You could bank corners, and really rip it up if you wanted to. Now it’s just flat and sandy.”

“I actually haven’t even been on it since, because it was so bad that one time.” Considering the end result of the group’s project, Collins said that he feels like they did way more damage than any sort of good.

Small gamble oak that was cut to make the new trail was used to divert people away and cover the old Stacy's Loop.

With good intentions, Trails 2000 organizers  intended to re-route Stacy’s Loop in order to improve drainage, flow and contour in order to make for a more sustainable trail by reducing ruts from summer thunderstorms.

Durango’s Director of Natural Lands, Trails and Sustainability Kevin Hall said the old Stacy’s Loop presented a safety issue because of how eroded it had become from rains.

“I was out there, and I saw it, and I heard it from a lot of folks, about the fact that it was not a safe condition for folks that are less than seasoned on their bicycle. So you know–the kids or the beginners. We also heard from runners that because it was so v’d out, that it was a bit challenging for them to run on it.”

As for the possibility of trail users taking advantage of the recently constructed swtichbacks to travel clockwise against the traditional flow of traffic (counterclockwise), Hall didn’t see that as a safety concern.

“The traditional flow pattern is always counterclockwise, and I think it will stay that way,” Hall said.

“I don’t know why anyone would want to choose to go in the opposite direction,” said Hall. “Could that happen? Yeah it could happen. I would hope that we don’t run into problems with it.  Honestly, if we find out that it becomes an issue, then we look at what we need to do to deal with it.”

“One thing we haven’t wanted to do is overregulate the trails,” Hall said.

Sage brush, sticks, rocks, and mounds of dirt pulled out of the ground by an excavator were used, in addition to gamble oak cut for the new trail, to cover up the old Stacy's Loop.

Hall said that once the new reroute settles in, it will be just as fast of a trail as the old one for users going counterclockwise.

In the end, the new trail turned out to be a real bore for some recent mountain bikers who were used to the banking turns and gravity-fed speed they would gain on the old Stacy’s Loop.

While the old Stacy’s could have been drained using water bars or natural barriers, Trails 2000 organizers elected to bypass it and eliminate it for the most part.  They put in a series of swichbacks that often times re-routes users back up hill, with the effect of slowing their momentum. In one case, the trail switchbacks uphill right before a water bar that one trail user thought was supposed to be a jump.

An excavator the group rented from Target Rental of Durango was used to obstruct the old Stacy’s Loop from future travelers by scooping up large chunks of dirt and placing them in the middle of the old trail.

Trails 2000 board member Daryl Crites ran the excavator to impede the old Stacy’s Loop, saying that trails placed right up the fall line tend to convert into gullies and ditches, instead of trails.

“We got some complaints last year after those big gully washers, there was that little rut that was about 3 or 4 inches wide by 2 or 3 inches deep, right down the bottom of Stacy’s, which just made it a disaster.”

“We’ve been looking at solving that situation,” Crites said. “I think we’ve been studying it 3 or 4 years now.”

The new rerouted Stacy's Loop is seen in this picture with the old, covered-up route leading off to the right.

“If we didn’t do something, it was just going to turn into another one of those big gullies. So, that’s where the switchbacks came in,” he said. “You’re right, they do go down and turn and go uphill. And the whole purpose of that is to have a place to get rid of the water and make it sustainable so that they just don’t gully on out.”

“While we were doing that we wanted to turn it into a flowing, fun trail,” he said.

“I think it’s actually way faster than it ever was before, on a bicycle anyway, because you have those big roundhouse turns,” said Crites, “and a little smoother, just better feel to the trail.”

During the same time that Stacy’s Loop was getting revamped, Trail 2000 was adding an easier switchbacking trail to the end of the meadow loop as an option for kids or beginners who sometimes fall on the loose downhill nose of the ridge exiting into the bottom of the meadow. While the old trail continuing down the ridge was left intact, the new one takes a left near the rock jump and heads north towards the sunny side of the ridge on its way down.

While this blogger can sympathize with the construction of more beginner-oriented trails around the Meadow Loop, the obstruction and destruction of Stacy’s Loop under the guise of sustainability is seen as a narrowly-focused management decision. After riding Stacy’s Loop over the past 11 years, through 11 monsoon seasons, not once did Stacy’s become impassible or dangerous to this blogger. It used to be a fun, flowing trail that allowed riders to keep their momentum through the use of banking turns that were, in part, created by the assistance of mundane erosion caused by rain.

Many of the users of the old Stacy’s Loop were indeed downhill/freeride/all-mountain-oriented mountain bikers.

Public versus private property ownership map for Horse Gulch. Image courtesy of Kevin Hall.

For a trail that’s used by multiple user groups to be augmented and pacified to meet the needs of younger, less experienced user groups goes without reason. Plenty of trails exist or can be created to meet the needs of beginner riders, hikers or runners without subverting and contorting a trail that’s built its reputation on speed, banking turns, and gravity with the assistance of some mundane erosion effects.

This blogger encourages readers to contact Mary Monroe or Daryl Crites of Trails 2000 to request that the group never uses heavy machinery in Horse Gulch again, regardless of their trail construction needs (info@trails2000.org). Also, readers are encouraged to contact Durango’s Natural Lands, Trails and Sustainability Director Kevin Hall (hallks@ci.durango.co.us) and encourage him not to allow any more heavy-handed single-track re-routes in Horse Gulch using heavy machinery. If motorcycles aren’t allowed on City open space purchased with GOCO money, neither should excavators or other heavy machinery, with the exception to those used for the suppression of wildfires.

Hall also spoke about the prospect of developments he thinks the community supports at the trail heads to Horse Gulch.

While a wheel-chair accessible path from the bottom of Horse Gulch would be impractical, said Hall, a path from the north side/Goeglein Gulch area would be more of a conisderation for the City to undertake given the more gradual topographical approach towards the meadow area.

The City would have to pick up the tab for such a path that meets federal standards, said Hall. For the time being, however, the City will honor a handicapped person’s request to access Horse Gulch from either the bottom or top of Horse Gulch Road through either gate, Hall said.

Additionally, Hall spoke about support for putting in a nice trailhead with some type of bathroom facility.

“But we’re not at a point where we know with any certainty how that’s going to look or where it’s going to go or when it might happen,” Hall said. “But it’s definitely something we all recognize there’s a need for.”

“I don’t want to see that up in Horse Gulch,” said Hall. “I want to see that at the trail head.”

This blogger is asking that such a structure be scratched from the city’s plans, as currently existing bathrooms on City property are poorly maintained. Human fecal matter in the Gulch is not currently a problem, and until it does become a problem this blogger sees the construction of a bathroom there as a means to the City charging trail users a fee to enter.

Cliff Pinto of Pedal the Peaks declined to comment for this story, and Mary Monroe of Trails 2000 did not return this blogger’s phone call and voice message.

As for the recent decimation of Stacy’s Loop, please join me in speaking out against this atrocity and oppression of a smile-inducing trail that many of us used to love.

Please sign our petition demanding that Horse Gulch open space be left as a primitive area by clicking here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-primitive-horse-gulch/